Noël Coward:-“It’s discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.”

2015 WEATHER FORECAST for the UK
Based on the planetary ordering of solar activity.

From March 18/20 a sharp cold snap
Slightly milder 2nd week April
Very warm from April ~15
Cooler and wetter from around April ~29
Warmer from May ~17
Warm burst from ~25 May
Cooler and wetter ~4-9 June
Strong warmth from 10/11 June*************
Cooler and wetter from ~24 June
Possible few warmer days from 29 June (not certain)
Cooler and wetter from 5-7 July
Possible few warmer days from July 19 (not certain)
From July ~29 a strong warm burst************
Weaker warm burst from 8/9 August
Cooler and wetter from August ~20
Possible few warmer days from August ~25/26 (not certain)
From September ~4 cooler-wetter
Slightly milder from October ~2/3
Colder from October ~14
Much colder from November ~4/5

————————————————————-
Temperature deviations are relative to normals for the time of year.

Contact

Ulric Lyons: Long Range Weather and Climate Forecasts.

ulriclyons at gmail dot com

This forecast is general/unpaid/free. Therefore no high level of precision is claimed. It is presented to show the efficacy of Ulric’s system and stands, unedited, for all time. It takes some effort to drill into the data so if you need precise predictions for events please contact Ulric who will be more than happy to help.

Carl Sagan:-“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

A troll dropped his shit on a thread at http://wattsupwiththat.com and crept off. This is that:

I take a couple of issues with it. Not least of which is the claim that almost 40,000 papers were read, to some extent, by this guy, albeit with some help from usual suspects, SS crackwhores Crook and Vermicelli – even if they ‘only’ read the titles and abstracts that is a lot of time invested.

This ‘scientist’ asks others to provide evidence that his and his cohort’s guesswork is erroneous. [FAIL]. Err, that’s your job. If your guesswork was falsifiable – BTW we know it is NOT falsifiable, therefore it is not graced with the epithet of ‘hypothesis’ – the FACT that no-one has done so yet is not a problem for sceptics. It is your, and your congregation’s problem. Why should this have to be continuously pointed out to you guys? You are educated?

So. At one end of this particular straw-man turkey sub Dr James Lawrence Powell claims to have read “…whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that “reject” human-caused global warming …”, Nearly 40,000 articles. and at the bottom of his ‘Hot Brown Sandwich’ we find “…We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree …” [FAIL]

That is a lot of effort spent to jump to a wrong conclusion. If I had put this much work into a project I would probably notice that I was investigating the wrong premise. After 10 years of wading in this mire I have only observed two, maybe three eccentrics who claim that there was no warming in the last quarter of the 20th Century – the rest of us seem to reject the human causation will cause a catastrophe up the road aspect to varying degree[pun intended].

He bases this conclusion on zero evidence. That elusive ‘magic bullet’ that he so wishes existed in his closed circuit of projection: “… had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifiesproves human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.” Fixed That For Ya Dr Powell

I read some of his stuff at http://www.jamespowell.org/Blog/Blog.php Whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that show his joy of life in the echo chambers of “… ClimateProgress.org, RealClimate.org, and SkepticalScience.com …” because I cannot comment at desmogblog where the ‘article’ is posted and his homepage does not allow commentary. Quelle sur-fucking-prise.

Also, on Thu, Dec 8 2011 he wrote “… Why is sea level rising faster than any time in history? …” [FAIL] He is a geologist. Not a very good one it would appear. The guy is a paid advocate out of the Gore mould. I wont be wasting any more time on him. 3 strikes. Get out.

… and the strawman? The entire premise of the article is that proof of warming is proof that bad monkeys did it by setting fire to things. No wonder he ‘works’ with the SS (Cook and Nuccitelli) and worships the investigative skillz of Oreskes. He is a turd eater. He is merely regurgitating prior work:

William Godwin :-“But it is the property of truth to be fearless, and to prove victorious over every adversary. It requires no great degree of fortitude, to look with indifference upon the false fire of the moment, and to foresee the calm period of reason which will succeed.”

It is some 20 months since I last deposited screed at this place. My reasons are manifold but one exceeds others. I have done with the holy writ of climate change/anthropogenic global warming/climate chaos or whatsoever it shall be named from this day hence. I rejoin the heathen mass. I renounce the religiosity of it. I hereby renounce whatever claim it had over my soul. It no longer holds me in thrall of its mighty powers. I fear it no more for it is broken-backed and redundant in the face of, yea, over 15 years with no significant rise in Global Delta T.

Trouble still abounds for shame. The communists continue to break down thy walls by sharing your treasure, the sweat of your unwashed rabble of course, not any of your wealthy betters’ hard earned, with the despotic leaders of oppressed “Third World” countries (and definitely not with their own great unwashed) via the uncontrolled United Nations. Sustainability (wailing, gnashing of teeth and more wailing) is the new battle crye even in the face of Nature’s Limitless Bounty. I truly despair that the proletariat will suddenly start to think for themselves so I am out of here. So long, and thanks for all the stuff.

I leave with a (very apt as this is the only true agenda of the thieves, brigands and mercenaries of climatology) quote from G.K. Chesterton:- “THE answer to anyone who talks about surplus population is to ask him whether he is surplus population; or if he is not, how he knows he is not.” and (as is most fitting in the climate debate that never happened) an appeal to authority;
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

10 November 2001

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2001/november.html

“Bedfordshire received up to 3 cm of snow in parts, the earliest significant report of lying snow in southern England since 1980.”

25 January 2002

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2002/january.html

“…most parts of Scotland experienced a substantial snowfall.”

4 January 2003

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2627777.stm

“The snow drew youngsters to the Newcastle moor”

21 November 2004

“A cold plunge of Arctic air brought widespread snow to the Midlands and parts of the south with over 5cm of lying snow in some central parts. A temperature of -13 was recorded …”

25 November 2005

“An early snowfall affected parts of the SW of England, Wales and Scotland causing power cuts and traffic problems partly caused by the ‘Pembrokeshire Dangler’ affect.”

Tuesday 28 February 2006 – Saturday 4 March 2006
Heavy snow showers affected many districts of the UK over this 4-day period. The areas that sustained the worst of the snow were N Scotland, E Scotland, NE England, N Ireland, Wales and East Anglia. Heavy snow showers also affected CS England, NW England, the Midlands and SW England.

Monday, April 10th, 2006 – More than 13cm of snow fell in parts of Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire and southern London. In Kent, the M20 was covered with a thin layer of snow that made driving hazardous,

19 November 2007

“A deep low to the south dragged cold air up SE from an unusually cold continent … Snowfall was the key story though, with places like Sennybridge (nr Brecon) reporting 7cm and Bromyard as much as 10cm with similar amounts across parts of East Wales, Worcestershire and Shropshire.”

28 October 2008

“It snowed in London last night – the first time it had snowed in October since 1934. And as the temperatures plummeted our elected representatives voted in favour of the climate change bill…”

Luther Burbank :- “We must learn that any person, who will not accept what he knows to be truth, for the very love of truth alone, is very definitely undermining his mental integrity.”

Faced with climategate, indeed everything-gate and the media avoidance of the same, it seems warranted to revisit some down to Earth views on the validity of CO2 as a “bad thing” and whether we could, or indeed should do anything at all to mitigate our contribution to the annual carbon cycle.

John R. Christy:
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2’s radiation properties. However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.”
“I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm

Richard S Lindzen:
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
“Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system.”

Fred Singer:
“Anthropogenic greenhouse gases can contribute only in a minor way to the current warming, which is mainly of natural origin”
“The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming.”
“The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.”

Roy Spencer:
“Mr. Carbon Dioxide was found at the scene of the crime — albeit without the murder weapon — there is no need to search for any other culprits or accomplices. The circumstantial evidence has convicted him. Even though Mr. Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, we are now calling him derogatory names, like ‘pollutant’.”
“Daily noise in the Earth’s cloud cover amount can cause feedback estimates from observational data to be biased in the positive direction, making the climate system look more sensitive to manmade greenhouse gas emissions than it really is.”
“All of this assumes that mankind is the primary cause of global warming anyway. You might be surprised to learn that there has never been a single scientific paper published which has ruled out natural climate variability for most of our current global-mean warmth. Not one.”
“A small change in cloud cover hypothesized to occur with the El Nino/La Nina and Pacific Decadal Oscillation modes of natural climate variability can explain most of the major features of global average temperature change in the last century, including 70% of the warming trend.”

Syun-Ichi Akasofu.
“It is quite likely that a significant part of the temperature rise after 1975 is due to the multi-decadal oscillation, not the greenhouse effect as hypothesized by the IPCC. The reason why the global warming trend stopped in about 2000 is likely to be due to the fact that after peaking in about 2000, the multi-decadal oscillation has started to have a negative trend. The halting is not due to a La Niña. There is nothing unusual or abnormal about the present global warming trend and temperature. There were a number of periods when the temperature was higher than the present even after the recovery from the last Big Ice Age.”

Reid Bryson.
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.” “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

Who are these upstarts?

John R. Christy Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, B.A., Mathematics, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, Contributor (1992, 1994 and 1996) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the IPCC.
http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/NSSTC-CSPAR_Colloquia/FAL-01/christy_bio.html

Richard S Lindzen, Ph.D. Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published over 200 books and scientific papers, lead author of Chapter 7 of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville, American Meteorological Society’s Special Award, NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#bio

Dr. Akasofu B.S. and M.S. in geophysics, Ph.D in geophysics, Professor of geophysics at UAF since 1964, director of the Geophysical Institute from 1986 until 1999, first director of the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) upon its establishment in 1998, and remained in that position until 2007. The same year, the building which houses IARC was named in his honour.
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu

Reid Bryson Atmospheric scientist, B.A. in geology Ph.D. in meteorology, professor emeritus of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, the first chairman of the Department of Meteorology in 1948, became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies. Most cited climatologist in the world.
http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html

We are constantly bombarded with the meme, “thousands of papers by thousands of scientists”

Whenever (every time, so far) I have asked for 3 of those papers that claim to be showing a specific CO2 physical effect upon atmosphere I have been ignored, had the subject talked around or I have been ridiculed for denying the CO2 effect.

All those “thousands of papers” that “all the world’s scientific institutions agree” with are focussed solely on the warming, mostly with regard to those “thousands of scientists” specialist fields. Or based upon models. Or guesswork.

It got a little further toward comfortable for the majority of our kin at the end of the last century. Check.

The physical properties of CO2 allow it to interact with certain aspects of the electromagnetic spectrum. Check.

Mankind liberates CO2. Check.

CO2 in atmosphere is well-mixed.Please check.

Plant respiration cancels CO2 “heating” effect. Please check.

And, last but definitely not least, CO2 caused the warming of the last 30 years of the 20th century. Erm… Please check.

I am making an exception for a couple of reasons, not least of which is the amount of and the particularly spiteful mindedness of some of the denizens herein.

Who, exactly, is in denial now? The disgusting behavior of a vocal minority of “believers” who have too much time on their hands or are morally or fiscally invested in the, now fast unraveling, hypothesis that the very gas that allows life to flourish will kill us all soon if we continue to increase its levels to those it has resided at often in times past.
Or we release it too fast.
Or its increasing level in atmosphere will change the pH of the oceans as it approaches levels attained many times before.
Or global temps will rise to previous levels and, miraculously, this time methane release in the Arctic will spell doom.
Or something else invented by rent seeking cheats that will remain unfounded and un-falsifiable, yet profitable for an elite few.

You never did have any evidence that CO2 caused the warming at the end of the 20th century but that didn’t curb your enthusiasm for control, your attacks on progress and your endless malice toward unbelievers.

Sure, there were those thousands of papers by thousands of scientists, supported by all the major scientific institutions, that showed some warming in their chosen fields. We never denied those. All we asked for was real world evidence that our small contribution to the carbon cycle had some effect upon that, now a decade distant, warming.
We were denigrated for asking and denied a platform for debate. One should be extremely careful when witnessing such. One day the boot and foot will switch sides. That is the nature of politicized science.

Meanwhile the very companies/corporations that pollute the biosphere, fish the oceans to extinction, devise new weapons, splice genes and keep billions of your fellow humans in poverty whilst working them into an early gave are laughing at you and pocketing your taxes.
All that effort invested in a weak and sickly hypothesis when it could have done some real good.
All that lack of protest about truly devastating environmental impacts while throwing yourselves, unthinking, against the relentless inertia of the current necessities of modern life such as coal and oil powered energy generation that allows us to progress as all our discovered sources of energy have done previously.
All that spleen vented at entities that provide true benefits in your lives, such as well lit hospitals and libraries, that could have been reserved for government insistence on massive intrusion into your privacy, drug company insistence that herbal cures and organic food are a waste of your money or the dogmatic insistence that war is a necessary evil.

At least the energy companies have to provide tangible goods and services for your hard earned, unlike the carbon trading companies who merely need to purchase ink and paper to “produce” their certificates and will turn over, in the coming decade alone, more cash than all the oil companies throughout all their history. Without a commodity, or a benefit to humanity in sight.

Never mind, big business has many more specters lined up to divert you from true husbandry of the planet, only desirable and possible above a certain level of wealth – a level that we no longer enjoy. They will continue to use the very vessels you admire to do so. Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of the Earth have become grasping arms of the uncaring corporate machine and it happened on your watch. You have helped to build the brave new world our children will inherit. It will not be warm or cozy.

I hope you are proud of yourselves, but I guess you will just continue down the easy path and blame someone else, pick fights with your brothers and wallow, luxuriously, in your guilt. Exactly as “the man” would want.

declaration
I have no financial interest and have no expectation of financial or material reward from the energy industry..

… but I cannot fail to see that the, previously considered obscene, profits of ExxonMobil will be utterly dwarfed by Goldman Sachs, Blood and Gore in the carbon exchanges of the free world and I have far more to be grateful for from fossil fuels than I ever have, or will, from elitist control freaks.

H.L. Mencken :- “All professional politicians are dedicated wholeheartedly to waste and corruption. They are the enemies of every decent man.”

So, now, the UK Government’s chief scientific adviser John Beddington says it’s OK for me to claim the world is flat. Less than a year after he declared that cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from climate change, all before 2030 by the way, were certain. This “scientist” now says “There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed” and “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism”. So, I ask, what has changed to change his point of view on the settled science of climate change?

Oh yes, LOTS of the protagonists got caught with their hands in the till, cookie jar, nurse’s bra. I have tried to refrain from gloating over the climategate stuff. I have avoided taking pot-shots at the more obvious sitting ducks but this cannot pass without some questions.

The entire environmental movement has been hacked by agenda pushers. Would those who have fallen for the “CO2 caused the tiny warming at the end of last century” prevarication now become the most loudly vociferous in denouncing the climate fraternity as they are the most grievously wounded and monstrously deceived?

No, the people who have been happily and continuously vilifying anyone who questioned their dogma can only fall back on the precautionary principle. Do they not understand that to make progress it may be in the biosphere’s best interest for us to go about “business as usual” which, so far, has not come close to dragging the global temperature anywhere near even the least worst of the doom-laden predictions of a corrupt division of a corrupt organization or, for that matter, the global economy into convulsions, as the belief in the efficacy of models did to the banking fraternity’s playing fast and loose with everyone’s money.

Will they excuse the lies, fraud and obfuscation as “necessary evils” on the path to global emissions reduction, even if this would appear to be an utterly useless course both for humanity’s betterment and the very real greening of the planet that NASA has observed?

The people who support the CRU and the UN in these matters have shown a herd mentality of epic proportion. They have allowed a fictional threat to divert much needed funds, media focus and public attention away from real and pressing problems such as deforestation, overfishing, chemical pollution, water mismanagement and other truly egregious assaults on Mother Earth.

The supposed defenders of the environment, such as WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have colluded with, nay empowered, this cabal of anti-progress, anti-science and anti-human liars. They and their supporters should now be the loudest of voices shouting for reinvestigation of the records, a new broom to sweep the self-seeking from their offices and a fresh look at the science.

Yet most of the betrayed have meekly rolled over, turned their blind eye and maintained their belief, for it is now very evident that that is all it is, a belief in the “thousands of papers” by “thousands of scientists” supported by “the majority of scientific institutions” that merely show the warming and have comprehensibly failed to provide a single jot of repeatable, real world evidence that humanity’s additional CO2 caused that very beneficial 0.7C increase in delta T over the last 30 years of the 20th century.

That, it has become increasingly clear, is the only question “the powers that be” ever intended to address. They will now use every compliant tentacle to show ocean acidification, methane, speed of release and other “virtual certainties” of our continued liberation of CO2 warrant further deep intrusion into individual lifestyles and more yet taxation to cure the problems they hype. But this time they will be a little more circumspect and will attempt to shut down the blogosphere that has been the sole organ that exposed them as loons prancing around without any clothes.

….And many other meteorologists mistrust Mr Corbyn himself because he refuses to publish his scientific methods. I have been asking him for several months to offer independent corroboration of his forecasting successes but none has been supplied. …..

I find that what you write is a LIE.

I have referred you to plenty of independent corroboration* of our forecast accuracy and successes – sources and documents available via the public link:
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5&fsize=0
The link refers to published independent peer-reviewed verification of the significant skill of our gale (eg) forecasts, weather bets where we consistently won money and have as a consequence had that arrangement terminated by the bookmakers, and independent assessment by a loss-adjusters of our extreme events forecasts showing high skill around the world.

I demand that you forthwith publicly apologise for, compensate for, and retract your false and gratuitously damaging claims which are directed against me personally (you say: mistrust Mr Corbyn himself) as well as our forecasting technique or I may have to take the matter further.

I demand you also NAME many names referred to in ‘the many meteorologists’……….. in your claim:
………And many other meteorologists mistrust Mr Corbyn himself because he refuses to publish his scientific methods

The facts are
(i) a number of important aspects of our SWT have been published and/or presented at conferences in the UK, USA and Russia
(ii) All known assessments (public, published or private) of any statistically significant size and scope of WeatherAction long range forecasts show they have significant SKILL and there are no such honest robust assessments which show they are not skilled in the parameters and periods and stages models where we and forecast users have claimed skill.
(iii) Meteorologists/physicists who said they wanted to know more about our forecasting technique failed to attend – despite invitation – our public conference on 28th Oct at Imperial College where I explained some important matters concerning our forecasting technique. You were there.
(iv) The proof of reliability is nothing to do with publication or not of part or all of material which may have a privileged status (and received no state funding); any more than the fact you cannot find out published material on how your mobile phone, Ipod or Coca Cola is made stops you trusting them.

I haven’t noticed a statements from you on the lines:

‘Roger Harrabin says he doesn’t trust Coca Cola, mobile phones or Ipods because the makers have refused to publish how they are made’.
‘Roger Harrabin doesn’t trust Bill Gates himself because he hasn’t published the Microsoft computer code or the microprocessor production techniques which makes his Ipod work’

When will you announce these things?

Your claim on this point is also gratuitously damaging. I require you to

1) name MANY such meteorologist who hold with your statement including that they do not trust Piers Corbyn himself. I remind you that refusal to divulge such sources of libel is itself something which may have to be taken further.

2) justify the assertion that it is valid to not trust something because how it is made is not known to you or been published.

Do you know that most of the science and technology in most hi-tech stuff and military equipment is NOT PUBLISHED. Do you know that a large number of physicists work for the military and their work is never published, yet it is applied in many things on which daily life depends.

Ah yes I forgot
Roger Harrabin refuses to fly in an Airbus 360 because the software running the take-off process hasn’t been published
Roger Harrabin doesn’t support the Army in Afghanistan because they haven’t published the names of Intelligence sources..

Let’s get real. When you Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News make claims people expect them to have weight and believe in your assertion in (2) above. The world of travel, machines, communications and high technology will stop if people believe in this principle. What works is what works independently of whether how it works is known to you or anyone.

Are you a public service broadcaster or what?

I had thought you were more honest than David Shukman. Was I wrong?

* Note. Your request in November for companies especially large corporations who use(d) our forecasts to be put in touch with you with a view to (ongoing) assessment – has had some consideration but it depends on
a) whether they are willing to be divulged on any basis – and the largest ones or NOT
b) whether we AND they can trust you
c) whether such an exercise and the interference it involves with our commercial operation will prove anything more than the INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION already made available to you and the public (which includes peer reviewed work and scientific betting records ).

So far I have had conflicting advice on this project and now wonder what is its true purpose from your point of view.

We do have a system whereby some farmers communicate with each other on forecast applications and potential usage but I have no intention of involving you in that.

Quotes from some of our users (which we do circulate anyway at times) although very positive are not really independent corroboration in the scientific sense and could be attacked as such – because proper assessment requires a look at full data sets preferably defined in advance – eg ALL our published extreme events forecasts in defined categories over a reasonably long defined period of time. Those are on the web and have been verified by insurance company based loss adjusters and you have been directed there and know of there existence. Why didn’t you cite these?

Friedrich Nietzsche :- “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

Copenhagen, one translation:- Bribe Haven, is now under way and our betters are scoffing at their troughs and scoffing at us. If it were not so sick it would be quite funny to see the anti-science brigade and their political masters spending everyone’s hard-earned on carboniferous limos and jets to get themselves to a bean feast orgy of mammoth proportions. Cheers, twats.

I just watched something hilarious on iPlayer. Newsnight, the BBCs premier weekday news program had Professor Andrew Watson and Marc Morano head to head on the Climate Gate issue.

The professor spent his time blustering and stuttering as well as bolstering his workmates’ science and claiming “the other side” resorts to character assassination, rolling his eyes and shouting for Mr Morano to shut up. Marc Morano tried to make his point that evidence of warming does is not evidence that CO2 did it but was constantly heckled by Watson and harassed by the (rubbish, but then, we all can’t be Jeremy Paxman) interviewer. The last word? Professor Andrew Watson:- “What an asshole”. Possibly when he thought the camera was off. The BBC apologised.

So, the guy who earned a BSc in physics from Imperial College, London, which has Piers Corbyn and Brian May, amongst others, as alumni from the same decade, and who once said about his time at the University of Reading, where he earned his PhD, “My supervisor was James Lovelock, whose view of the earth as a whole system has influenced me ever since.” seems to think that insults can be substituted for a lack of evidence in one’s chosen field.

The piece showed some weather events and the more extreme of our world’s beautiful and diverse environments and went on to say that the world has warmed.

Get with the program. Yes the world has warmed. Billions of dollars has been spent on proving the world has warmed. This is not the issue. The main argument is; Has CO2 caused the tiny warming at the end of the 20th Century? Almost no money at all has been spent on that. The “consensus” relies on the argument from authority that says “thousands of scientists agree” or such. YES, thousands of scientists agree that the Earth warmed up at the end of the last 100 years. They have been paid handsomely to do the research showing that glaciers melt and species alter their patterns if temps change. They have produced copious amounts of “peer reviewed” papers to that effect. Yes it warmed up a bit. Maybe not as much as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (their new name for the Medieval Warm Period) maybe nowhere near as much as the Roman Warm Period. It warmed upa bit. So what?

But it has stayed roughly the same average temperature since then.

The desperate “Climate Secretary” Miliband then came on and said, amongst other arguments from authority, something to the effect that this does not disprove the science.

All we ask is to be shown the particular science. The empirical evidence that links the rise in CO2 with the blip in temperature that peaked in 1998. Surely, somewhere amongst the thousands of papers produced by thousands of scientists there is one that gives some pointers to the veracity of the flawed and unproven hypothesis that so badly hankers after ‘theory’ status?

Mark Twain:- “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

Toward the end of this year we face the jumping together of a fearful populace and some renegade, dangerous law-makers.

Michael Crichton said it best. “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

Let us examine consensus.

In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the puerperal fever following childbirth was an infectious processes and he could cure it. The consensus said NO! and it took 125 years for the deaths of women from this easily prevented process to stop.

Pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious. All that was needed was to find the germ. Dr. Joseph Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor and stated that he could induce the disease. The consensus said NO! The result? Despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Stomach ulcers? The same.

Continental drift? Alfred Wegener proposed in 1912 that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus said NO! for fifty years. The theory was denied by the great names of geology until 1961.

There are more, but now we face a consensus that borders on religious belief. Why? Because there is zero evidence that CO2 caused the tiny warming at the end of the last century. Evidence of warming is not evidence that CO2 did it. Models are not evidence.

The planet has been warmer than at present, and colder than at present, for geological time periods, with higher ppmv of CO2 in atmosphere. Mammals, and the plants we rely upon, evolved at a much higher level of CO2 than we can reach if we burn all known reserves of fossil fuels.

The latest propaganda derobed. With hat tip to matt v over at http://wattsupwiththat.com :

The latest Met Office climate forecast of 4C during the next 50 years (by 2060) – an average rate 0 .08 C/year

Met Office projected rate of temperature rise?

20 times faster than the trend of the last 158 years
10 times faster than the trend of the last 100 years
15 times faster than the trend of the last 10 years

Yes lads, looks like that is happening doesn’t it. That is why we cannot believe your forecast for just this next UK winter. You have not got a seasonal forecast right for the last 3 1/2 years.

But Lo, cometh a righteous man, in the form of appeal court judge Michael Burton, found “If a person can establish he holds a philosophical belief based on science as opposed, for example, to religion, then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection.” in the case of Mr Tim Nicholson, whose views on climate change should be given the same consideration by employers as “religious or philosophical beliefs” and his former employers were in the wrong when they made him redundant. He claims his opinions on climate change led to his unfair dismissal.

Mr Nicholson, from Oxford, said his views were becoming “more and more relevant” to the planet’s future, adding: “I am grateful that Mr Justice Burton understood that deeply and genuinely held views about catastrophic climate change and the need to change our ways to protect the human race are philosophical views that are worthy of protection.”

At least the plaintiff did not claim there were facts at stake and admitted it was a philosophical issue. His Honour agreed.

Not insignificantly Mr Justice Burton was the man who found that Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

He has done us all a back-handed favour with his latest ruling. I will leave it to the reader to work out what has happened here.